I respect your optimism but that's why I gave the Iraq War example. Which was not just a cry for no war but really a cry for "don't fuck the world up" (which was the result). So if we all march against the state of the world now, we don't have actual power to make any changes.

My view is that only bloodshed achieved change. Both as the only way to touch elites, and by accepting death ourselves. Only then we can generate a movement that is willing to kill and die for result.

To gain that position of power though the people need arms. There's not many countries where that option exists. So then that leaves only a few countries where a real resistance could rise. USA in effect is in that process, but again, it's not a real movement of the people.

The other way is to have the army be that force. That's a common method in many countries. When the forces those elites command no longer hold support for them then power can and does shift. That almost happened in Turkey a few years back. It exemplified though that the people DIDN'T support it and it was the people that put their lives on the line to stop it.

So while I do agree with you that people power is a thing which can change the course of history, there are many other factors that need to align too in order for the power elite to even take the noise we make seriously.